THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.674 of 2025

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 19.01.2024 passed in CRL.M.P.No.2991 of 2023 in C.C.No.10577 of 2020 by the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned trial Court’), whereby the application filed under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’), seeking permanent release of Passport bearing No. R0895673 of the petitioner-accused No.1, was dismissed.

02. Heard Sri Anitha Raghavula, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-

respondent. Perused the record.

03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, without any direction from the learned trial Court, the Police seized the passport of the petitioner during the course of investigation and deposited the same before the learned trial Court. The said act of the Police is against the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suresh Nanda v.

CBI wherein it was held at Paragraph Nos.12 and 15 that:

“12. It may be mentioned that there is a difference between seizing of a document and impounding a document. A seizure is made at a particular moment when a person or authority takes into his possession some property which was earlier not in his possession. Thus, seizure is done at a particular moment of time. However, if after seizing of a property or document the said property or document is retained for some period of time, then such retention amounts to impounding of the property/or document. In the Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar (2nd Edition), the word impound has been defined to mean to take possession of a document or thing for being held in custody in accordance with law. Thus, the word impounding really means retention of possession of a good or a document which has been seized.

…..

15. In our opinion, even the Court cannot impound a passport. Though, no doubt, Section 104 Cr.P.C. states that the Court may, if it thinks fit, impound any document or thing

1 (2008) 3 SCC 674

produced before it, in our opinion, this provision will only enable the Court to impound any document or thing other than a passport. This is because impounding a passport is provided for in Section 10(3) of the Passports Act. The Passports Act is a special law while the Cr.P.C. is a general law. It is well settled that the special law prevails over the general law vide G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation (9th Edition pg. 133). This principle is expressed in the maxim Generalia specialibus non derogant. Hence, impounding of a passport cannot be done by the Court under Section 104 Cr.P.C. though it can impound any other document or thing.”

04. It is further submitted that the matter is now at the stage of consideration under Section 239 Cr.P.C. on 11.11.2025. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner-accused No.1 is willing to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court and, therefore, sought a direction for release of his passport.

05. In response to the aforesaid submission, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State fairly admitted that the passport of the petitioner-accused No.1 was seized without there being any direction from the learned Magistrate. He further submitted that, subject to the availability of the petitioner-accused No.1 for examination under Section 239 Cr.P.C., he has no objection for release of the passport and left it to the discretion of this Court to pass appropriate orders.

06. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side, and keeping in view the settled principles of law laid down in the aforesaid decision, this Court is of the considered opi